of a regulatory system or, at least, are understood in this way by the judges. A basic principle of interpretive rationality requires that one law cannot prohibit what another law orders, since in such a case the citizen would lack guidance according to law. But it cannot be ignored that there are many norms that encourage certain types of conduct, for example in the practice of sport or the exercise of medicine, which could enter into conflict with other norms that prohibit activities injurious to safety or health. Under this hypothesis, it would be irrational to understand that certain definitions prohibit what other laws promote. Among these promoted activities is the exercise of freedom of expression, because, in a pluralistic society, this is essential for exerting public control over the actions of government and administration. Therefore, in cases such as this, when confronted with reports denouncing the conduct of public officials whose control is in the public interest, it constitutes an activity expressly protected by the American Convention and, consequently, cannot be considered in the context of conduct characterized as criminal by law. 124. This does not mean that journalistic conduct cannot produce liability in another legal sphere, such as in civil law, or require correction or public apologies, for example, in cases of possible abuses or excesses of bad faith. However, this case involves the exercise of an activity protected by the Convention, which precludes its criminal characterization and, therefore, the possibility of being considered a crime and being subject to penalties. In this regard, it must be made clear that this is not a question of excluding a prohibition through justification or special permission, but rather of the free exercise of an activity that the Convention protects because it is indispensable for the preservation of democracy. 125. As to the statements made by Mr. Álvarez, it should be noted that these called into question the administration of public funds of the National Assembly based on public documents issued by State bodies; in other words, they referred to matters of public interest (supra para. 36). Furthermore, it is not disputed that the facts were public knowledge, and had already been the subject of a request for a preliminary impeachment hearing that was awaiting a decision by the Plenary of the Supreme Court. 126. In the second place, it is important to note that Mr. Álvarez published an opinion column in a national newspaper. The Court has indicated that it is essential that journalists who work in the media enjoy the necessary protection and independence to fully perform their functions, since they are the ones who keep society informed, and this is an indispensable requirement that enables society to enjoy full freedom and to strengthen public debate.131 127. It is also important to point out that the supposed purpose of the criminal proceedings against Mr. Álvarez was to protect Mr. Lara’s right to honor, and that in this case there is no social imperative that makes it necessary to restrict freedom of expression given that: i) the article refers to the actions of a public official; ii) the article refers to Mr. Lara’s exercise of his duties as a public official, and that this was also mentioned in statements by other State bodies; and iii) the management or administration of public funds or resources is a matter of public interest (supra para. 113). In other words, in this case the greater public interest is associated with the dissemination of information or news and not with the subjective protection of Mr. Lara’s right to honor and reputation. 128. Furthermore, the Court considers that it is not sufficient for a public official whose honor was supposedly injured by a journalist exercising his freedom of expression, to take private legal action in order to avoid having his official status taken into consideration and thereby elude the provisions established in the Convention and in the Court’s jurisprudence. Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, Judgment of February 6, 2001, Series C, No. 74, para. 150; and Case of Granier et al. v. Venezuela, para. 152. 131 25